<quoted text>You wouldn't know "ANYTHING" historically or biblically true because you are "stuck on" bible only heresy and editorializing (making it up) as you go along, in which your "personal opinion" is the final authority

Personal opinion dictating what a god ordains always has the final word to the right-fighters in all religions.

<quoted text>I agree given the choice between the two, religion should be outlawed world wide, I see more harm than good coming from it,lets take the train wreck in Canada the break was tampered with, why didn't god intervene and stop the person who tampered with the train? and why didn't he stop the plane in san Francisco from crashing? all these type things happen on a daily basis around the world, and we're suppose to believe we have a loving god watching over us, for what? to see what new stupidity we can get ourselves into on a daily basis? obviously he does nothing to help, and this joke about the saint hood for the two popes we are suppose to believe they committed miracles to gain saint hood and yet god sits in his chair an does nothing? what's wrong with this picture.

From the 1200s to the 1800s, Papal leaders openly condemned the reading of the Bible in the vernacular (the language of the common people) and even persecuted those caught with copies of the Scriptures in their possession. Because Bible Societies (beginning in the 1800's) won the war and have spread God's Word around the world, Rome has backed off of its previously public position. Yet the Vatican has not changed. Papal Rome's opposition to pure Bible truth remains to this day. Note these historical statements:

At the Council of Toulouse (1229 A.D), papal church leaders ruled: "We prohibit laymen possessing copies of the Old and New Testament ... We forbid them most severely to have the above books in the popular vernacular." "'The lords of the districts shall carefully seek out the heretics in dwellings, hovels, and forests, and even their underground retreats shall be entirely wiped out." Pope Gregory IX, Council Tolosanum, 1229 A.D.

The Roman Catholic Council of Tarragona also ruled that: "No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after the promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned." D. Lortsch, Histoire de la Bible en France, 1910, p. 14.

The Council of Trent (1545-1564) placed the Bible on its list of prohibited books, and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Roman Catholic bishop or inquisitor. The Council added these words: "That if any one shall dare to read or keep in his possession that book, without such a license, he shall not receive absolution till he has given it up to his ordinary."

"Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular (in the common language of the people, D.R.) there will by reasons of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good..." Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, p. 274.

J.A. Wylie, an authority on Romanism in the Reformation era, dedicated two chapters of his book The Papacy; Its History, Dogmas, Genius, and Prospects (London: Hamilton Adams, 1888) to Rome's attitude toward the Bible. Wylie states: "The Latin Vulgate is the authorized standard in the Church of Rome, and that to the disparagement of the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. These are omitted in the decree [by the Council of Trent], and a translation is substituted. All Protestant translations, such as our authorized English version, Luther's translation, &c. are prohibited" The Papacy; Its History, Dogmas, Genius, and Prospects, p. 181.

Rome's attempt to keep the Bible from men has continued to recent times. Pope Pius VII (1800-1823) denounced Bible Societies and expressed shock at the circulation of the Scriptures. This Pope declared, "It is evidence from experience, that the holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit."

Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846) railed: "against the publication, distribution, reading, and possession of books of the holy Scriptures translated into the vulgar tongue."

Pope Leo XII called the Protestant Bible the "Gospel of the Devil" in an encyclical letter of 1824. In January 1850, he also condemned Bible Societies and admitted the fact that the distribution of Scripture has "long been condemned by the holy chair."

Pope Leo XIII declared, "As it has been clearly shown by experience that, if the holy Bible in the vernacular is generally permitted without any distinction, more harm than utility is thereby caused..." Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, pp. 412-413.

Yawn...The neverending unceasing of Protestant rubbish posted is beyond conceivable for people with an ounce of integrity or knowledge.

This is the typical of the misunderstanding and false charges that protestants lay against the Catholic Church. I thought it worth setting the record straight.

There are three charges here:

1. The Catholic Church forbade commoners to read the Bible

2. The Catholic Church forbade commoners to own Bibles

3. The Catholic Church forced people to hear the Bible in a language they did not understand.

None of these are true in the general sense. The first two have limited truth, but those limitations are very important. The Catholic Church forbade people to read corrupt Bibles produced by Protestants just as today we might discourage (or even forbid if we could) ordinary Christians from reading the New World Translation. I know one Catholic speaker who said that when he is in a second hand book shop he buys up these JW corrupt translations and burns them so they will not fall into others hands. The Church values scripture and does not want to see it corrupted.

The early Church used the Greek LXX Old Testament and the NT was written Greek anyway. So those that could read, read it in Greek, which was the lingua franca of the day. Later translations were also made into Latin. At the end of the fourth century Jerome, tri-lingual in Greek, Latin and Hebrew made an updated Latin translation using Hebrew and Greek as well as earlier Latin texts. This was completed around 405 AD. However in 406 the barbarian hoards crossed the Rhine and swept into Gaul and Spain, and three years later Italy was attacked and in 410 Rome itself was sacked by Alaric of the Visigoths. Europe descended into barbarism. Learning was kept alive by the Church and Latin was the language of those that could read or write, and not many could.

As the Church expanded translations were made into local languages. For example at the beginning of the eighth century the Venerable Bede, living in his monastery in Jarrow in North East England, translated the Bible (or at least some of it) into Anglo-Saxon. Some say the whole Bible, but according to his scribe, the Deacon Cuthbert, he just completed translating Johns gospel before he died. I doubt he left that until last.

Saints Cyril and Methodius converted the Moravians in the 9th century and created the forerunner of the Cyrillic alphabet to translate the Bible into the local language.

Even earlier, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia,In 406 the Armenian alphabet was invented by Mesrob, who five years later completed a translation of the Old and New Testament from the Syriac version into Armenian.

Returning to English here are a couple of relevant quotes from "Where We Got the Bible" by Father Henry G. Graham, chapter 11 which is entitled "Abundance of Vernacular Scriptures before Wycliff"

....After the Norman conquest in 1066, Anglo-Norman or Middle-English became the language of England, and consequently the next translations of the Bible we meet with are in that tongue. There are several specimens still known, such as the paraphrase of Orm (about 1150) and the Salus Animae (1050), the translations of William Shoreham and Richard Rolle, hermit of Hampole (died 1349). I say advisedly 'specimens' for those that have come down to us are merely indications of a much greater number that once existed, but afterwards perished.....

Moreover, the 'Reformed' Archbishop of Canterbury, Cranmer, says, in his preface to the Bible of 1540:'The Holy Bible was translated and read in the Saxon tongue, which at that time was our mother tongue, whereof there remaineth yet divers copies found in old Abbeys, of such antique manner of writing and speaking that few men now be able to read and understand them. And when this language waxed old and out of common use, because folks should not lack the fruit of reading, it was again translated into the newer language, whereof yet also many copies remain and be daily found.'

The two biggest problems for the common man in owning and reading the Bible was that:

1)he couldnt read 2)he couldnt afford a Bible.

During Bedes life the Abbot of Bedes monastery commissioned the monks to produce three complete Bibles. Each Bible used the hides from 1,030 calves to provide the vellum with nine scribes working on each Bible. When complete one Bible weighed 75 pounds and with its protective box would have taken two men to carry it. Not exactly the thing to slip into your back pocket!

In the 16th century the English College in Rheims set out to produce a new English translation of the Bible. The New Testament was published in 1582. The first part of the Old Testament was published in 1609 and the second in 1610  a year before the KJV was published.

Interestingly Protestants did officially ban the reading of the Bible.

1543 was to bring its own catastrophic set-back for the cause of reform, the notorious Act, passed on 10th May, "for the advancement of true religion"... Severe penalties were therefore imposed on those who had or kept any books containing doctrines contrary to those authorised since 1540. The Act targeted unauthorised versions of the scriptures, in particular Tyndale's New Testament, and it forbade altogether the reading of scripture in private by "women artificers, prentices, journeymen, serving men of the degrees of yeomen or under, husbandmen or labourers.", though noble and gentlewomen might read the Bible in private. Persistent clerical offenders against this Act might be burned, laymen were subject to forfeiture of goods and perpetual imprisonment.(Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars pp432-433)

However I will go though your quotes. As you have just cut and pasted these from various anti-catholic sites Im sure you wont mind if some of my answers are just cut and paste answer too.

Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity shouldnot be permitted to have the books of the Old orNew Testament; we most strictly forbid their havingany translation of these books."- The Church Council of Toulouse 1229 AD

A Catholic reply:This council was called to deal with the Albigensian/Manichean heresy that was running amok in southern France. The texts it was referring to were doctored versions of the Bible which the Albigensian/Manichean created in order to support their heretical teachings. So no, this council did no forbid the reading and study of authentic copies of the Bible.

=]No one may possess the books of the Oldand New Testaments, and if anyone possessesthem he must turn them over to the local bishopwithin eight days, so that they may be burned..." A Catholic reply:There was no Council of Tarragona in 1234. There was a provincial council in 1242 to deal with the details of the Inquisition. Presuming the author simply got the year wrong, I do know the history of this area and time in a general way. Muslim Moors, who had recently been ejected from this region, had produced doctored versions of the Bible, much like the Albgensians had done in France. This was done to support the view that it was Ishmael, not Issac, who Abraham blessed, that Jesus was not crucified and that another even greater prophet would follow Jesus. Many many copies of these false scriptures had been spread throughout the land during the Moorish occupation of Spain.

Canon 6. Directs that the house in which any heretic shall be found shall be destroyed. Not relevant to the topic (as well as a quote from a council that didnt exist). However its worth pointing out that in England during the persecution of Catholics, any house in which a Catholic Priest was found was burned to the ground, whether people weres till in it or not..

(1) In the year 1215 Pope Innocent III issued a law commanding that they shall be seized for trial and penalties, WHO ENGAGE IN THE TRANSLATION OF THE SACRED VOLUMES, or who hold secret conventicles, or who assume the office of preaching without the authority of their superiors; against whom process shall be commenced, without any permission of appeal(J.P. Callender, Illustrations of Popery, 1838, p. 387). Innocent declared that as by the old law, the beast touching the holy mount was to be stoned to death, so simple and uneducated men were not to touch the Bible or venture to preach its doctrines(Schaff, History of the Christian Church, VI, p. 723). This is typical of the sort of polemic pretending to be scholarship that Catholics have to put up with and that protestants love to quote from.

The book Illustrations of Popery is subtitled The Mystery of Iniquity Unveiled in it Damnable Heresies, Lying Wonder, and Strong Delusions With the Sanguinary Persecutions of the Woman Drunken With the Blood Of The Saints How reliable do you think any quotes from such a source is?

However, let us suppose that Pope Innocent III did indeed publish this. What does that show? Does it show that translation of the bible was forbidden? No, it doesnt. It says that translations should not be made without the authority of their superiors. The Church was concerned about poor translations being produced that corrupted the text. It would want to ensure that translations were made by competent people.

Moreover according to Illustrations of Popery this was in a Papal Bull. These were letters or decrees sent to specific people or groups of people concerning specific circumstances. They are not general edicts.Wikipedia has a list of Papal Bulls and Pope Innocent III did not issue one in 1215 so J.P. Callender may have made it up or confused it with something else.

(4) In 1483 the infamous Inquisitor General Thomas Torquemada began his reign of terror as head of the Spanish Inquisition; King Ferdinand and his queen PROHIBITED ALL, UNDER THE SEVEREST PAINS, FROM TRANSLATING THE SACRED SCRIPTURE INTO THE VULGAR TONGUES, OR FROM USING IT WHEN TRANSLATED BY OTHERS(MCrie, p. 192). For more than three centuries the Bible in the common tongue was a forbidden book in Spain and multitudes of copies perished in the flames, together with those who cherished them. Firstly it wasnt the Catholic Church which made this prohibition but the King and Queen.

Secondly I would question the veracity of this quote. The problem with these sort of quotes is that no source is given and it is impossible to check their accuracy.Note this from the Catholic Encyclopedia under Spanish TranslationsA complete version in the vernacular, a manuscript preserved in the National Library at Paris, was made by Nicholas de Nardò, O.P., in 1472. The first printed Bible (Venice, 1471) was due to Nicholas Malermi, O. Camald. A revision of this, with notes, rubrics, and résumés largely after the Biblical commentaries of Nicholas of Lyra, was made by Marine de Veneto, O.P.(Venice, 1477). So there were already Spanish translations available.

Its also worth noting that around the same time Cardinal Ximenes was concerned about a lack of scripture scholarship and founded the University of Alcala. He also had a team of specialists produce, under his personal supervision, the first polyglot Bible with the texts in Latin, Greek and Hebrew side by side.

(5) In England, too, laws were passed by the Catholic authorities against vernacular Bibles. The Constitutions of Thomas Arundel, issued in 1408 by the Archbishop of Canterbury, made this brash demand:WE THEREFORE DECREE AND ORDAIN THAT NO MAN SHALL, HEREAFTER, BY HIS OWN AUTHORITY, TRANSLATE ANY TEXT OF THE SCRIPTURE INTO ENGLISH, OR ANY OTHER TONGUE, by way of a book, libel, or treatise, now lately set forth in the time of John Wyckliff, or since, or hereafter to be set forth, in part of in whole, privily or apertly, upon pain of greater excommunication, until the said translation be allowed by the ordinary of the place, or, if the case so require, by the council provincial(John Eadie, The English Bible, vol. 1, 1876, p. 89). Consider Arundels estimation of the man who gave the English speaking people their first Bible:This pestilential and most wretched John Wycliffe of damnable memory, a child of the old devil, and himself a child or pupil of Anti-Christ, who while he lived, walking in the vanity of his mind crowned his wickedness by translating the Scriptures into the mother tongue(Fountain, John Wycliffe, p. 45). The point you embolden clearly says that no-one shall translate BY HIS OWN AUTHORITY. Again the Church was concerned about the quality of the translations. As I showed in my OP there were numerous translations into the vernacular already.

6) Pope Leo X (1513-1521), who railed against Luthers efforts to follow the biblical precept of faith alone and Scripture alone, called the fifth Lateran Council (1513-1517), which charged that no books should be printed except those approved by the Roman Catholic Church.THEREFORE FOREVER THEREAFTER NO ONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PRINT ANY BOOK OR WRITING WITHOUT A PREVIOUS EXAMINATION, TO BE TESTIFIED BY MANUAL SUBSCRIPTION, BY THE PAPAL VICAR AND MASTER OF THE SACRED PALACE IN ROME, and in other cities and dioceses by the Inquisition, and the bishop or an expert appointed by him. FOR NEGLECT OF THIS THE PUNISHMENT WAS EXCOMMUNICATION, THE LOSS OF THE EDITION, WHICH WAS TO BE BURNED, a fine of 100 ducats to the fabric of St. Peters, and suspension from business for a year(Henry Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages). Again to prevent corrupt translations of the Bible. Not stopping translations. The Church did not want corrupt translations produced.

(7) These restrictions were repeated by the Council of Trent in 1546, which placed translations of the Bible, such as the German, Spanish, and English, on its list of prohibited books and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Catholic bishop or inquisitor. Restrictions were on on corrupt translations such as Luthers where he actually inserted the word alone into the sacred text to support his faith alone doctrine.

<quoted text>Noah's ark did not hold water...It sat upon the water...Isaiah is known as the Messianic Prophet He wroteIsa_9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: andhis name shall be calledWonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.Your theory just sank...

<quoted text>Personal opinion dictating what a god ordains always has the final word to the right-fighters in all religions.Right-fighting is what keeps on feeding the religious disputes.

"Personal (editorialized) opinion is what keeps YOU and your June VanDerMark anti-catholic, National Inquirer "trash attacks", aimed (directly) against the faith of other Christians, especially Catholics.......... If atheism or agnosticism (or whatever you call yourself) is the "center of your life" then go live it!! Hope it works out for you!!.....Modernistic (relative truth)"opinions" never has, nor ever will be the basis of the Catholic Faith and the doctrinal teachings of the Catholic Church!.....We'll leave contradicting 21st century "half-truth, half-heresy" Christianity to our Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ!.... I/we as Catholics will continue to adhere and follow the historical and biblical PROVEN TRUTH of over 2000 years from the teachings of Jesus Christ and His One True Catholic Church.

<quoted text>ReginaMI can't take credit. I defer to St. Bonaventure. He addressed the issue of a "new flesh" in Mary, and how wrong it was. I merely updated it with "DNA".I think as Christians we know the Messiah(Jesus) is the one being talked about in Isaiah 11:1, but give less thought of the deeper meaning in the context....I confess, as a Protestant, intuitively I accepted by faith, Jesus as Savior, but as time went on, I put Jesus higher and higher, until he became out of reach. And I think this is a common problem. It was not until, I re-found the humanity of Christ in Mary, and she led me to the RCC that I had a closer relationship with Jesus.I do not think this is strictly a "Protestant" problem, rather an awareness of sin begins a struggle in the conscience, in a separation process, which needs reconciliation.(And of course the RCC is a help in the reconciliation process with the sacrament between man and God.)

Jesus is the one we should be worshiping ..obviously He left his,family. To go out and preach

That does nit mean that it is nit Christian Teaching that she is HIS MOTHER..out of David ..his descendant ..

<quoted text>why would you resort to this ignorant response.who are you to question God? and His method to bring the Savior into this world?if you choose to bring fictional comics into this thread, it speaks of the Reverance that you give to God and His Son, let alone the surrogate mom.truthfully, you catholics should be ashamed for the lies that you are telling on Mary. Something no Christian would ever do.

Preston says, "who are you to question God and his method to bring the savior into this world"?

Does anybody really take you serious anymore? You're the one questioning the method. You're the one saying Mary never was His biological Mother. You concocted this idea that I never heard before. And it sounds like most of your protestant team hasn't either.

<quoted text>DONT CHANGE MY WORDS. I NEVER SAID THAT JESUS HAD NO DNA FROM MARY.WHY IS THIS A CATHOLIC TRAIT? YOU HAVE TO LIE JSUT TO TRY AND PROVE A POINT. THIS IS ONLY A FORUM, WHY WOULD YOU ENDANGER YOUR SOUL BY LYING?I SAID THAT GOD IS A SPIRIT AND THEREFORE COULD NOT CONTRIBUTE ANY DNA TO JESUS.here is what I said.but to link him with God the father is impossible sin e there is only the mitochonria from her and not God.lol.few of you catholics are capable of being truthful. and most of you are filthy liars and I include you in that mix.

Stick a fork in it. I'm not lying when I clearly say 'forgive me if I represented your views wrong, Preston'Besides, a 'lying accusation' from you means nothing, as you're not interested in truth to begin with.Don't blame Catholics because of the enormous challenge it is to keep track of the Biblical understandings of all you guys. If God and Mary combined DNA to bring forth Christ in the flesh, then Mary had to be pure and without sin. FULL of Grace.

Moreover according to Illustrations of Popery this was in a Papal Bull. These were letters or decrees sent to specific people or groups of people concerning specific circumstances. They are not general edicts.Wikipedia has a list of Papal Bulls and Pope Innocent III did not issue one in 1215 so J.P. Callender may have made it up or confused it with something else.(4) In 1483 the infamous Inquisitor General Thomas Torquemada began his reign of terror as head of the Spanish Inquisition; King Ferdinand and his queen PROHIBITED ALL, UNDER THE SEVEREST PAINS, FROM TRANSLATING THE SACRED SCRIPTURE INTO THE VULGAR TONGUES, OR FROM USING IT WHEN TRANSLATED BY OTHERS(MCrie, p. 192). For more than three centuries the Bible in the common tongue was a forbidden book in Spain and multitudes of copies perished in the flames, together with those who cherished them.Firstly it wasnt the Catholic Church which made this prohibition but the King and Queen.Secondly I would question the veracity of this quote. The problem with these sort of quotes is that no source is given and it is impossible to check their accuracy.Note this from the Catholic Encyclopedia under Spanish TranslationsA complete version in the vernacular, a manuscript preserved in the National Library at Paris, was made by Nicholas de Nardò, O.P., in 1472. The first printed Bible (Venice, 1471) was due to Nicholas Malermi, O. Camald. A revision of this, with notes, rubrics, and résumés largely after the Biblical commentaries of Nicholas of Lyra, was made by Marine de Veneto, O.P.(Venice, 1477). So there were already Spanish translations available.

And despite all the cruel efforts in Spain..England and with authority by Rome.

I have a bible today..So did the English settlers

And in the passages I personally compared a few years ago...

They are the same as the CATHOLIC bibles

Minus,the APOCRYPHAL books.

Which imo

ARE NOT NECESSARY to SALVATION.

THE book of John alone if that is all people had could lead a, soul to the Lord..

GOD allowed for both the Reformation and printing bibles in our tongues

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.